Doctrine – Page 2

Thy Name In Vain

Taking God’s name in vain is a serious offense: Jehovah will not hold anyone guiltless who takes His name in vain. (Ex 20:7) He introduces this concept in the Decalogue as the last command of three relating how we’re to treat God Himself. What does it mean, to take God’s name in vain?

Traditionally, it appears to have been understood to mean we’re not to speak or write God’s name inappropriately, which is certainly dishonoring to God. (Ps 139:20) Yet a careful look at the text itself indicates this is not the whole of the matter; it is perhaps only periphery.

The command does not refer to speaking or writing God’s name, but to taking His name, taking it up, bearing it, carrying it along. The Hebrew is נָשָׂא, nasah, to bear. Cain chooses this word in his complaint, “My punishment is greater than I can bear.” (Ge 4:13), and God uses it to describe how the high priest continually bears the names of Israel upon his heart in the breastplate (Ex 28:29), and also how he bears their judgment before Jehovah. (30) So, taking Jehovah’s name seems to be more about taking it upon one’s self, associating and personally identifying with it … with Him.

So, what then does it mean to take up Jehovah’s name, or to associate ourselves with it, in vain? Vain is the Hebrew שָׁוְא, shav, meaning empty, false, deceitful. It is used in the command to not raise a false report, to mislead and give the wrong impression. (Ex 23:1)

Thus, taking God’s name in vain is to falsely identify and associate ourselves with God by appealing to His name and character when we aren’t submitted to Him, not loyal to Him, not faithful to Him. It would include speaking on His behalf when He hasn’t called us to do so and told us what to say. (De 18:20) It also would describe identifying ourselves as God’s servants or representatives under false pretenses or ulterior motives, to gain the respect of and/or otherwise influence, manipulate or control others, using God to benefit ourselves; this is the heart of all false religion.

When the disobedient become impostors, infiltrating the Faith, presenting themselves as Christ’s disciples and servants (2Co 11:15), they evidently do more harm to the name and reputation of God (Tit 2:5) than those who merely speak or write His name in appropriately. When we falsely represent Him to others, who then associate God Himself with our sins and indiscretions and blaspheme Him because of us. (Ro 2:24), God will not overlook this; He will hold each of us accountable for how we leverage and exploit our relationship with Him.

articles ♦ blog

Thou Shalt Not Kill

The sixth commandment, Thou shalt not kill (KJV, ASV, GNV), is commonly also translated, You shall not murder. (ESV, NASB, NIV, YLT) The Hebrew is רָצַח, ratsach, meaning kill, slay, murder, so either translation might be reasonable. Which translation is best, or does it matter?

Murder is defined as “the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another” (emphasis mine); it implies the perpetrator acted with malice aforethought, without justification or valid excuse.

Kill has a much broader definition: taking a life regardless of motive or circumstance. The impact of the translation here seems significant, on a deeply fundamental precept.

In societies where euthanasia has been legalized, and/or killing in self-defense, it’s acceptable to take a human life on purpose under certain conditions. In such cases, the command, You shall not murder isn’t violated since the act is lawful, and may not even be malicious; however, such actions do violate, “Thou shalt not kill”; so, the translation does matter.

According to Torah, when is it acceptable for an individual acting on their own volition (not as an agent of the State enforcing capital punishment, or in the military) to intend to take another person’s life?

As a general baseline, consider laws regarding involuntary manslaughter (De 19:1-13): taking a life entirely accidentally, without any malice, forethought or criminal negligence (De 22:8), brings severe consequences in Torah. If the perpetrator wishes to live, he must flee to the nearest city of refuge, and forfeit the comforts of his home, community and way of life for the foreseeable future. The slayer is effectively imprisoned within the walls of this city until the death of the high priest, which could be decades.

If accidentally taking a human life, which certainly isn’t murder, carries such a penalty, effectively treated as if it were a significant Torah violation, what law does it violate, if not the 6th commandment?

What about other scenarios would we not consider murder?

Mercy killing, or euthanasia, for example, evidently violates Torah, though it’s not considered murder when legalized. Consider David’s reaction when a soldier killed King Saul, after Saul was already mortally wounded, to spare him the cruelty of being abused by the Philistines. Though the young man obeyed his king’s direct command, apparently in loyalty, mercy and kindness, even at further risk to his own life, he was promptly executed for doing so. (1Sa 1:1-16) If this act of obedience, bravery, kindness and loyalty did not violate Torah, David would have been guilty of shedding innocent blood himself and held accountable. Euthanasia evidently does violate God’s law, but not, You shall not murder, yet we don’t see any other laws besides the 6^th commandment which cover this case.

Further, though taking a life in self-defense is legal in many societies, and therefore not considered murder, this is also not generally allowed in Scripture and is punishable by death. (Ex 21:12) Self-defense, though it is generally not premediated or malicious in nature, is only allowed in a very limited context; Torah is much more limited than what’s legal in many societies.

Taking a life in self-defense is evidently only allowed in the case of a thief killed in the act at night. (De 22:2-3) In this case, in breaking and entering a home at night, the thief positions himself as a threat to an entire family. A man’s home is sacred; no one but family enters without permission. (De 24:10) So, breaking and entering a domicile under cover of darkness is especially threatening; apparently only in this very limited context is there sufficient grounds for proactively taking a human life.

Taking a human life as an independent free-will agent is an extremely serious matter; there is always a severe consequence, regardless of the motive, unless lives are being threatened and there’s no other way to manage the scenario safely. This moral precept is not sufficiently captured by, You shall not murder; it requires, Thou shalt not kill.

This principle of the inherent dignity of human life is rooted in Man being made in the image of God (Ge 9:6); it is foundational to a righteous society. Translating this text correctly is therefore extremely important.

One might argue kill is too general since technically this includes animals and plants, which contradicts other scriptures. Using murder does solve this problem, but then fails to properly classify several classes of unscriptural behavior as sinful, and there is no other command to account for them. This tells us we need to use the word kill here and understand from context the focus is on behavior towards people, not animals and plants.

Given the fact scripture indicates that several types of deliberate killing are forbidden which are not equivalent to murder, as in euthanasia and many cases of self-defense, it appears the classic KJV translation of the 6^th commandment is indeed the correct one: Thou shalt not kill.

articles ♦ blog

Let No Man Deceive You

Let’s carefully consider the claim that king David’s sin with Bathsheba is proof believers can willfully commit terrible sins, still be forgiven and have confidence of Heaven. It’s common for sinners to comfort themselves with the idea that King David evidently sinned worse than they are, committing adultery and murder, yet he still made it. Is this reasonable?

It certainly is clear David committed terrible sins, he committed them willfully and persisted in them over a prolonged period, and he was also forgiven: he will be present in Heaven. But this does not prove the proposed claim; we don’t know for sure if David was a believer at the time he committed these horrible sins: it is conceivable he was regenerated afterward.

David did remarkable things in faith before his sin with Bathsheba, but this not necessarily an indication he was justified, regenerated by God. Some of Abraham’s great acts of faith were prior to his justification; he followed God’s call to leave his home country (Ge 12:4) before believing in God for salvation. (15:6) God doesn’t tell us exactly when David believed in God, having faith unto righteousness. It might have been after his sin with Bathsheba.

The Apostle Paul describes David’s understanding of salvation in no uncertain terms (Ro 4:6-8, Ps 32:1-2), yet this is likely (Spurgeon, vs 5) taken from David’s testimony after his sin with Bathsheba. Perhaps David’s sin is an indication he was not yet regenerated at the time.

Anyone living a life of willful sin who presumes they have eternal life from David’s example is banking on David committing his horrendous sins as a believer, but this presumption: it cannot be proven. What can be proven is what God tells us about believers and what they’re like. For one, no murderer has eternal life abiding in him (1Jn 3:15); one who premeditates a murder and carries it out, as David evidently did, gives clear evidence of an unregenerate state.

The Apostle John tells us to be very careful here: “Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.” (1Jn 3:6-10) John warns that false teachers will try to convince us we can live in sin and have eternal life; the Apostle Paul is also very clear here. (Ep 5:5-6, 1Co 6:9-10) It’s deception.

If we want to believe a lie, if we don’t love the truth, it will be nearly impossible to resist this one (2Th 2:11-12); it certainly appeals to the flesh. Let’s not fall for it, and gently warn those who are. (2Ti 2:24-26)

articles ♦ blog

Faith Alone

Justification by faith alone, and not by works, is the foundation of Christian theology. Often referred to as sola fide (“faith alone”), it is the pillar of the Protestant Reformation; many are devoted to preserving this core tenet of Christian belief: faith alone in Christ alone. (e.g. GES)

In searching the Bible for this concept, it is instructive to note that only a single verse contains both words, faith and alone, and clearly explains the relationship between them — James 2:17: “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.” It tells us we’re not saved by faith alone; a faith that is alone is dead, not saving faith. (vs 14) The book of James apparently denies the doctrine of sola fide, at least as most would understand it; no wonder Martin Luther, the father of the Reformation, had difficulty accepting the inspired text.

Yet it would indeed be perilous to conclude that works are necessary for salvation, that we can somehow earn or merit salvation. Scripture clearly states otherwise: we’re saved by faith, and not by works. (Ga 2:16) Mixing faith/grace and works as grounds for salvation isn’t rational; as requirements they are mutually exclusive by definition; it must be one or the other. (Ro 11:6) How then do we parse this? We must be careful, thorough, and precise; we cannot afford to miss it. (2Pe 1:10-11)

It helps to begin by observing that Christ did not come to start a new religion, nor to teach us a new way to be saved: the way to Heaven has never changed. We’re saved just like Father Abraham and King David; Paul builds his case for justification by faith on the testimonies of these two men. (Ro 4:1-3, 6-8) Born again is not just a New Testament idea; it’s grounded in the Old Testament. (Jn 3:10)

It’s very easy to teach a new (and thus false) gospel by taking isolated NT passages out of context; look at the whole of Scripture. If we can’t see the Gospel in the Old Testament we don’t yet understand it, for this is how the Apostle Paul taught it. (Ro 16:25-26)

Believing on Jesus Christ (Ge 15:6) is the supernatural work of God (Jn 6:29) which causes us to rest in the finished work of Christ for our salvation. (He 4:1-3) This divine work creates in us a new, transformed nature (Ga 6:15) which does not deliberately and willfully continue in sin. (1Jn 3:9-10) Those who do intend to continue living in sin don’t yet know God. (vs 6)

Thinking we can receive the gift of eternal life without receiving Christ Himself is deception: the gift is the Giver: Christ Himself is the Life we seek. (1Jn 1:1-2) To believe on Him is to receive Him as He is (Jn 1:12) and trust in Him (Ep 1:15); it is to love Him (1Co 16:22) and obey Him. (He 5:9)

So, we’re indeed saved only by faith (by faith alone), and saving faith is only in Christ (faith alone in Christ alone), but true faith is never alone: it does not exist in isolation, apart from works. Saving faith is always accompanied by a changed life. (He 6:9) It isn’t that we must change our life in order to believe on Christ, but experiencing faith in Christ will radically change us. Pursuing holiness won’t save us, but there’s no eternal life without it. (He 12:14) When we diligently seek God, we find Him (He 11:6) and He changes us. (Ep 2:10)

articles ♦ blog

Mark Them

God tells us to mark them which cause divisions and offenses in a manner contrary to the law of Christ and avoid them. (Ro 16:17) To do this, we must differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable differences within spiritual community.

Since the primary goal in the church is to edify one another (Ro 14:19), fundamental doctrinal differences related to the nature of God, Man, Salvation, etc., the authority of Scripture, even varying hermeneutics, shouldn’t be allowed: they become a constant source of disruption and frustration in spiritual discussions and applications, especially if some insist on imposing their views upon others.

Yet even when we’re doctrinally aligned on a functional level, the spirit in which one engages can be problematic; we’re to honor all people (1Pe 2:17), respect and value everyone in a spirit of mutual submission within the Body of Christ. (Ep 5:20) Respectful behavior is often culturally defined, and may vary within spiritual communities, comprising all types of cultures, races and backgrounds. As such, it’s important for believers to highlight and align on communication protocols which foster mutual respect, such as:

1. We defer any topic until we’re each ready to discuss it.
2. We use non-accusatory language: rather than, “You’re being illogical!” or “You’re taking it out of context!”, prefer, “I don’t see how you are getting there”, in a tone which is more respectful, meek, gentle, humble.
3. We don’t interrupt or talk over each other.
4. We present one key point at a time, giving ample opportunity for response and clarification, to counter and/or challenge before moving to the next point.
5. We re-state what we hear in our own words, when presented with a complex or difficult idea, to the speaker’s satisfaction before responding.

In submitting ourselves to such rules of engagement we’re exercising self-control, monitoring and evaluating our own behavior (Pr 25:28), more ready to hear than to speak (Ja 1:19), listening to one another, allowing all to participate and be heard (1Co 14:31), to promote our mutual edification. Those unwilling to control their tongues inevitably cause unnecessary strife (Ja 3:14) and discord. (Pr 6:16-19)

Finally, whenever an offense develops between believers in the church, resolving this promptly is imperative (Mt 5:23-25), this must not be allowed to fester. (1Co 5:6) To avoid pettiness, minor indiscretions should be overlooked in a spirit of charity. (1Pe 4:8) Major conflicts (as defined by community) should first be dealt with privately (Mt 18:15), and unresolved disputes brought to the brothers’ attention. (16-17a) The uncooperative and unsubmissive, intent on polluting the congregation with divisions and offenses, must be removed and loved outside the Body as friends or acquaintances, not permitted within close spiritual community. (17b)

articles ♦ blog

In Himself Alone

Until quite recently, I’ve held what many might consider to be an extreme view of Total Depravity; I believed everyone (including me) will always make the most evil choice God allows them to make every time they make a choice, and that the only reason we do not act like Satan at every instant is the restraining grace of God. I can no longer hold this position, partly due to this verse: “But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. For every man shall bear his own burden.” (Ga 6:4-5) I am unable to make sense of this text, and many others like it, without abandoning my former position, so … I let it go, it’s history.

Evidently, there are degrees of real moral freedom within the boundaries of Total Depravity, such that we have some practical potential to do better or worse within these boundaries according to our own personal choices. Our depravity is evidently total in scope in the sense that all we do is tainted with sin (Is 64:6): we cannot ever do anything perfectly good (Ro 3:12), with 100% pure motives. (Pr 20:9)

However, while we may not be able to make any single choice with perfect motives, it is also evident we have some practical control of how far away we deviate from God’s perfect standard as we choose; we operate within some range of badness, and we can choose to be better or worse within this range. (2Ti 3:13) So, it appears that we are not totally depraved in degree, only in scope.

This is how we experience reality: we have moral freedom to make better or worse choices within some theoretical range of moral goodness, and this is also how God treats us (Mt 12:41); so, it makes sense that this is the reality, not just an illusion. Where these boundaries ultimately come from and how they appear within and impact each individual is mysterious, but a few things appear to be clear about it.

As a foundation, no human except Christ JEsus has ever been perfectly good at any moment (Mk 10:18); all the rest of us are rebels (Is 53:6), some more than others (Ge 13:13), but we’re all guilty (Ro 3:19), and God is perfectly just in punishing us in our rebellion. (Ps 145:17) We’re all sinners (1Jn 1:8) in need of a Savior to save us from this condition: we cannot save ourselves. (Ep 2:8-9)

That said, it is evidently also clear that we are not all equally bad; some of us make worse choices in our total depravity than others, and this difference is something we ourselves can and ought to control. God may even tend to reveal the gospel to those who are trying to make better choices within their unique range of moral ability (Ps 50:23), to those seeking eternal life. (Is 55:6-7)

This is not salvation by works; it is still God choosing to show mercy to the underserved (Ro 9:16), but it may also be God showing mercy to those who — though undeserving — are at least seeking mercy, trying their best (Ro 2:6-7), as bad as it is, within their own, unique degree of moral capability and freedom. (1Ti 1:13)

We perceive we are responsible to make the best choices we can, that it is up to each of us as individuals to do so, of our own free will, and that we don’t always want to make the most evil choice available to us, and that our actions are not all predetermined or compelled by any internal or external forces. Most importantly … we are commanded to live accordingly, and not assume we have no practical control or influence in determining our eternal destiny (Ps 50:23), but that we pursue God and His kingdom with all our might. (Lk 13:24)

If this is how we experience reality, and it is also how God describes reality, and it is also how He actually treats us, there’s sufficient reason to try to interpret all of scripture in accord with this perspective.

articles ♦ blog

Pay for the Loss

On Tuesday, April 25^th, I was hit by a car while riding my bicycle. The driver wasn’t paying attention, looking down, putting on her seatbelt while accelerating through a parking lot. I was on the sidewalk going against the flow of traffic; she hit me head on at an angle, catapulting me and my bike 10-15 feet through the air perpendicular to my direction of travel. Thankfully, I had on a good helmet; otherwise, I’d likely not be writing this today, or anything else.

I managed to come out of it with only a broken left wrist and significant bodily bruising; I have a new titanium plate screwed permanently into my wrist, but no other lasting damage, best I can tell. Looking back on it, this seems a bit miraculous in itself.

Thankfully, the driver was extremely distraught and profusely apologetic, staying with me and calling the ambulance. She took full responsibility and has been praying for my recovery. She has good insurance to help pay for the surgery, care and post-trauma recovery, additional financial loss, as well as pain and suffering. But now comes the ethics of collecting; what to ask for, how much, and how to go about it. This PIP industry is notoriously corrupt, reeking with greed and vice.

Yet Torah does lay out a sensible protocol for handling personal injury; it’s part of the Law of Love: the offending party helps the victim fully recover and also compensates for loss of time. (Ex 21:18-19) This evidently covers at least medical bills, earnings loss and related expenses. But how do we compensate for pain and suffering? Is this even in scope in the biblical protocol?

We ask how the event changed the victim’s quality of life by estimating the payoff the victim would have accepted to voluntarily suffer this loss. What monetary compensation would I have accepted in exchange for the use of my left arm for 4 months? I work out 5-6 times a week, and I type for a living. What’s that worth, in addition to all the other day-to-day activities for which I need both hands?

And even if arrive at such a sum, how do I collect it? Is it worth ruining another family financially? When I myself could easily have been the offender? When the other person actually appears to be more distraught about having caused the accident than I myself ever was going through it?

A brief study shows us two obvious things: [1] people carry insurance to protect themselves and others in just such circumstances, and [2] insurance companies generally pay only what they’re forced to. Unless we have the legal expertise and plenty of free time, we’re going to settle for less than we’re entitled, both legally and scripturally. Enter the Personal Injury Attorney: they’re trained to use legal means to ensure insurance companies pay what they should.

Putting myself in the shoes of the offender, would I mind if the victim hired an ethical PIA to get my insurance to pay a sum considered reasonable for pain and suffering? No. Would I mind if the victim hired a ruthless PIA to come after me for all they could possibly get? For sure. This then is the law of love, best I can sort it out for now.

articles ♦ blog

Let This Mind Be in You

Jesus Christ, being equal with God the Father (Php 2:6), submitted Himself as an obedient servant to the Father (7-8) and esteemed His Father greater than Himself. (Jn 14:26) In highlighting this attitude in Christ and calling us to be like Him (5), Paul is telling us how to walk in humility by esteeming others better than ourselves. (3)

The Greek word translated better is ὑπερέχοντας, huperechōntas, which means superior, surpassing, above, over, better than. The word compares and contrasts one with another. The renowned theologian Albert Barnes, in his exegesis here, understands better in a moral context: the humble consider others to be, apart from God’s grace, morally superior to themselves.

While saints are currently being trained and equipped to judge all human behavior (1Co 6:2-3), it’s tempting to practice on our own before the time (1Co 4:5), without full knowledge of God’s Way, or of the human heart. (1Co 2:11) Not a good move. (1Co 4:3)

While we’re not to evaluate others’ moral goodness yet (Mt 7:1), trying to decide how good or bad someone is or determine what punishment or reward they deserve, we may act as if others are morally superior to ourselves, above us; we may esteem or consider them to less evil than we would be without God’s restraining grace. This violates no law of God, and in following Christ, in emulating His lowliness and meekness (Mt 11:29), God tells us to do exactly this: “Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.” (Php 2:3)

God will judge us all according to our works (Ro 2:6), measuring and evaluating our thoughts, motives and actions according to His perfect, righteous standard (Jn 5:45); we’ll each score on the moral spectrum uniquely, no two of us being exactly alike. If we think to place ourselves above anyone else on this scale, with no way of knowing precisely where we stand, or exactly where anyone else does, we’re being presumptuous, proud (1Pe 5:5), thinking more highly of ourselves than we ought. (Ro 12:3) Rather, in lowliness of mind, we’re to avoid any tendency to exalt ourselves. (Ga 6:3)

In esteeming others better than ourselves, we should not conflate moral superiority with significance (ESV95), or value (NIV) or importance (NASB95); in providing His Son as an atoning sacrifice for each and every individual, God has infinitely valued each human being equally; we ought not to consider any person more or less valuable, significant or important than any other. Doing so is partiality, being a respecter of persons (De 16:19), which violates the law of Love. (Ja 2:8-9) In love and humility we’re to prefer one another in honor (Ro 12:10), not value, pleased as others are lifted up above ourselves.

Further, we should not confuse humility merely with a call to serve others. While it’s clear Christ humbly submitted Himself to His Father as a servant, it doesn’t follow that we’re to submit ourselves as servants to others; this is actually forbidden. (1Co 7:23) We’re to consider ourselves servants to Christ, not other people, and order our lives to as to please God and not men. (Ga 1:10) In submitting to God we will generally serve others in love (Ga 5:13), and defer to the needs and interests of others (Php 2:4), yet this is always in a context of stewardship and wisdom before God, not a blanket, boundaryless neglecting, disvaluing or demeaning of ourselves in interpersonal relationships. (2Co 8:13)

Christ, our example in humility, though He didn’t consider God the Father morally superior to Himself (for both are morally perfect), He did defer to the greatness and majesty of His Father, to the Father’s Headship within the Trinity itself. (1Co 11:3b) We’re called to follow His steps (1Pe 2:21), to emulate Christ’s lowliness of mind in our relations with one another, yet we can’t do exactly as Christ did here, using the same scale He did with His Father, since on that scale of headship all those within each gender are equivalent with one another. (3a)

Since we’ve eliminated importance, significance and intrinsic worth or value as proper ways to rank ourselves, the only relevant scale or ranking we may rightly refer to here in esteeming others better than ourselves is a moral one, the scale God Himself will use to rank us. (Mt 5:18) However, we’re forbidden to make any formal judgements of ourselves or others for the time being. (7:1-2)

Thus, our default position, if we’re going to esteem others better than ourselves, must be one of considering ourselves to likely be at the very bottom of this moral scale, to potentially be, apart from God’s grace, the most evil person who has ever lived, as Paul the Apostle evidently did (Ga 3:8, 1Ti 1:15), and in this God calls us to follow his example. (Php 4:9)

articles ♦ blog

Signs and Wonders

A miracle is when God disrupts the natural order of Creation to cause an event with no natural explanation. When and why God chooses to perform miracles is a bit of a mystery, yet I expect we’d all love to see one; for many of us it would be a first. They’re indeed rare, and it’s quite natural to ask why God doesn’t do them more often, and put Himself on public display.

Yet a better question may be whether our desire to see a miracle or a sign from God is healthy and appropriate. God certainly does them from time to time, so there’s evidently good purpose in them when they occur, but is it ever right to ask God to perform a miracle or a sign to help us with our faith? or to be seeking signs and wonders, pursuing the miraculous as a manner of life?

As Christ rebukes Jewish leadership for their unbelief, some asked Him to perform a miracle or sign to prove He was/is the Messiah. Yet Christ dismisses the request, saying evil and adulterous people ask for signs. (Mt 12:38-39)

And as Zacharias asked how he would know if the prophetic words of the angel of God would be fulfilled, evidently asking for some additional proof beyond the simple angelic promise, he was questioning God’s character, so God rebuked his unbelief, striking him with dumbness for nearly a year. (Lk 1:18-20)

On the other hand, God didn’t seem to mind Gideon’s request for a sign that he’d be victorious in battle, asking for dew only upon fleece, and then only on the ground. (Ju 6:36-40) Evidently, there are times when our faith is weak, and it’s OK to ask for a little confidence boost.

Perhaps it’s related to our motive, what we’re struggling with. If we’re responding to all the light we have, if what we’re wanting to believe has little evidence to support it, and the personal stakes for acting on it are high, as in Gideon’s case, perhaps the request is reasonable. But if we’re just being stubborn and selfish, as the Jewish leaders evidently were, or if we’re putting God to the test, as perhaps Zacharias did, then this displeases God. (1Jn 5:10)

Asking for proof of God’s existence, when Creation itself proves it undeniably, when even atheists inadvertently prove God is real in the very delusion of denial, this is wickedness. Just like Pharisees asking for further proof of Christ’s Messianic claim in the face of countless miracles, unmatched in all human history (Jn 15:24), in light of the power, precision and holiness of His message (Jn 7:46) … not a good idea. (Jn 4:49)

Even now, those with reasonable access to the abundant witness of Christ’s resurrection (Ac 17:31) and message (Jn 12:48) will be held accountable for how they respond. Additional proof should not be expected here; it might do more harm than good. (Mt 13:58)

Our interest in finding proof where God has not provided it, desiring further miraculous witness when God is generally pleased to work merely through apparently natural means, may be problematic in itself. The very existence of the Tanach is more powerful testimony than a resurrection (Ac 16:31), and its prophetic content is more compelling than Christ appearing to us in person. (2Pe 1:19)

God provides sufficient witness to convince anyone who’s willing to see, but not so much that mercifully limiting the condemnation of unbelievers is unreasonable. (Ro 11:32) We should be thankful for the abundant testimony God has already provided, and trust that the amount and types of evidence He chooses to give us are perfectly suited to fulfill His ultimate purposes and glorify Himself.

articles ♦ blog

His Elect

Scripture refers to God’s elect (Mt 24:31), those whom He has chosen: some angels (1Ti 5:21), as well as a few people. (Co 3:12) Why would God refer to certain angels and people as elect? What does this imply?

The saints are elect unto obedience (1Pe 1:2), chosen before the foundation of the world (Ep 1:4) to submit to God and walk with Him, so it seems reasonable the angels are chosen similarly.

Evidently, those whom God doesn’t choose rebel against Him. along with Satan, and are now at war with God, both humans (Ps 2:1-3) and angels. (Re 12:7)

This non-elect group of rebels evidently comprises nearly all people (1Jn 5:19), a full third of the angels, who chose to remain in Heaven after they rebelled (Re 12:4), along with a number of angels who’ve been chained up for leaving their Heavenly habitation (Ju 6), evidently to intermarry with humans (Ge 6:1-2), corrupt the human race (12), and prevent the Messianic prophecy from being fulfilled. (Ge 3:15)

As a particular showcase example, this ante-diluvian human-angelic mutiny, as it played out prior to the Great Flood, was so effective and pervasive God evidently had to step in and intervene to keep even a single strand of humanity intact (Ge 6:9), preserving a purely human ancestry through which to bring Messiah, destroying all the rest of humanity, most all animal life (Ge 6:13), and starting over, constraining such destructive angelic behavior going onward.

What is impressive (at least to me) about this overwhelming level of depravity, as it persists in both the angelic realm since the Creation week, as well as in humanity since the Fall, particularly as showcased in the ante-diluvian period, is that it apparently occurs even with full knowledge of the Godhead. Satan is so effective in his ability to deceive, he is able to win over anyone and everyone whom God has not graciously enabled to resist (Mt 24:24), even if we’re fully aware of the existence, holiness and omnipotence of God.

That Satan’s ability to deceive is not merely a testament to inherent human or angelic depravity, but evidence of the profound appeal, intelligence and subtlety of Satan (Ez 28:14-15), consider that Eve was enticed by Satan in Paradise when she had no need, trouble or discomfort, no reason to betray God, and did not have a depraved nature. And the angels who sided with Satan evidently did so in plain sight of God, without an inherently evil nature. (For, if God created fallen angels as inherently evil, or with an involuntary predisposition to evil, it is difficult to imagine how they would be culpable for acting out their God-given design.)

The implication is that every sentient, conscious being with the ability to make a moral choice has willingly chosen to depart from God at the first opportunity, even when bathed in the full knowledge of the glory, majesty and power of Almighty Godhead, unless God mercifully intervenes and restrains us. And also, that God has mysteriously chosen to intervene only in extremely few cases. (Mt 7:14)

Both of these mysteries should humble us, and fill us with joy unspeakable for the incredible mercies of God (Ps 103:11), those He has given the grace to believe on Him and follow Him. (Mt 19:25-16) We are precious few in number (Ro 11:5), and no better than the lost when left to our own devices. (Ga 6:3)

It should not surprise us when others do not receive the truth (2Ti 4:3-4), turning against it and against us, even when the truth is stated as clearly, plainly and lovingly as it can possibly be stated. Truly, no flesh shall glory in His presence. (1Co 1:29)

articles ♦ blog